This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.

Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

In Texas, authorities are investigatingcriminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.

These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.

Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative

Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York Univeristy claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.

The science of criminal justice tells us that many crimes go unreported, and the more “victimless” the crime, the more this happens. The fact is, a person attempting to commit voter fraud is very unlikely to be caught, which increases the incentive to commit the crime.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a sophisticated, comprehensive effort to catalog “the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities.” However, it tends to deal mostly in violent crimes. As complex as the NCVS is, gathering accurate data for unreported victimless crimes such as voter fraud is even harder, since 1) outside of the criminal, no one may know a crime has taken place, and 2) there is no direct victim to report the crime in the first place. Yet we are expected to believe that, unlike violent crime, voter fraud is limited only to the cases that are actually reported and prosecuted? This is a senseless position.

Further, the Brennan Center report argues that because prosecutor Kris Kobach’s review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states found only 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution (which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate), voter fraud is so statistically small that it’s a non-issue. Let’s follow this logic. Does the fact that 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle in 2009 mean that only 109 people jaywalked in Seattle that year? Does the fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015 mean that only that many people were driving without seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015?

Absolutely not. This can be proven easily because in 2014, the previous year, only...

Here is a rundown of some of the biggest bombshells dropped by WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Hillary Clinton’s speeches and emails, and why each is so important.

1. Clinton dreams of a world with “open trade and open borders”: Every American should understand that Democrats, and plenty of Republicans, are fighting an all-out war against national sovereignty. Sure, Democrats want new voters, and Republican interests want cheap labor, but they also share a mutual desire to increase the distance between the Ruling Class and voters. In the globalist future, political and business titans will stand atop the world, without having to worry about fulfilling annoying duties to grubby little voters with nostalgic memories of the days when American politicians served America’s interests. Globalism means you’ll never be able to vote against anything.

2. Clinton courted business elites to support liberal agenda to beat back populism: Clinton’s speeches include numerous examples of something that’s hardly new, or unique to her, but a very important harbinger of things to come if she gets into the White House. Democrats serve their voters a steady stream of anti-business, anti-wealth rhetoric, but they’re keenly interested in using Big Business to promote the agenda of Big Government. Some of the examples in the leaked speeches, such as Clinton urging business interests to beat back the Tea Party and support open-borders immigration, are points of common interest with the GOP Establishment.

3. Clinton campaign coordinated with Super PAC: No one familiar with the WikiLeaks disclosures should be able to restrain their laughter when Hillary Clinton talks about getting “big money” and “dark money” out of politics. Then again, she should have been laughed off the stage for such tirades long before WikiLeaks started releasing her campaign’s emails.

4. Clinton admitted she has different “public and private positions” on Wall Street reform: Again, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s always useful to catch a politician actually admitting she isn’t honest with the public on issues – especially an issue of keen interest to the Democrats who opposed her in the primary. In the same issue, she admitted she’s out of touch with ordinary Americans and “far removed” from middle-class life, which is a refreshing bit of (unintended) candor from such a sanctimonious candidate and Party. Lastly, she said it was an “oversimplification” to blame banks for the 2008 financial meltdown, which is true – and greatly understating the truth of Democrat politicians’ culpability, at that – but not at all what Democrat hyper-partisans want to hear from their leaders.

In the overall ratings category, all FOX News shows between 4pm and 11pm Eastern lead when compared to their competitors except the Kelly Hour. Megyn Kelly’s show is getting beat by Rachel Maddow at CNBC.

This never would have happened two years ago.

Trump supporters are boycotting her show.… And then turning back to FOX for Hannity.

FOX’s strategy of continuously bashing Donald Trump is now affecting the once all powerful media giant.

Sean Hannity, whose show airs at the 10pm slot, is the only FOX show leading in the 25 – 54 age demographic.

It’s clear to anyone who supports Donald Trump that FOX can no longer be relied on to offer a counter-balance to the all powerful mainstream liberal media complex. People are tuning out Kelly but coming back to FOX for Hannity’s show.

In a tangent, earlier today, The Hill had a hit piece noting that "Assange grudge against Clinton shapes US election", reporting that the Wikileaks founder's "grudge against Hillary Clinton is playing out on the grandest stage possible."

Between now and Election Day on Nov. 8, WikiLeaks is expected to release more than 40,000 more emails about Hillary Clinton that are meant to damage her run for the White House — possibly in batches on a near-daily basis.The emails, from hacks of...

On Thursday, both CBS This Morning and ABC’s Good Morning America framed the release of Clinton campaign e-mails as a “distraction” for the Democratic nominee while continuing to censor some of the worst revelations, including several exchanges in which staffers attacked Catholics. By contrast, NBC’s Today at least mentioned the controversy.

The second presidential debate pushed these two thoughts into the front of my brain: First, why are the moderators always allowed to be so egregiously, unapologetically, shamelessly biased against Mr. Trump? And, secondly, and this is not supposed to be funny - indeed, it is no laughing matter - why didn’t Hillary do her part of the debate dressed in orange and in a concrete and steel cell - pacing back and forth under an observation camera? I mean, if our principally spineless nation is going to stand around with its hands in its pockets, and allow this woman to continue her candidacy, she should do that from the same sort of ‘study’ in which Adolf Hitler wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ She has more than earned that. And no judge would grant her bail, seeing that she is the quintessential flight risk.

[A prefatory note: For the sake of life-giving brevity, I won’t spend a lot of time and space attempting to document the obviously nefarious janitorial behavior of Hillary Clinton. Anyone who has Internet access and any gray matter can check out the colorful history of former FLOTUS, United States Senator, Secretary of State, and now presidential candidate Clinton. Further, the controversial Clinton Foundation is an ever-morphing dark castle that already has an abundance of good reading out there documenting its shady movement. Reciting its exploits is a temptation that would kill my story - because it’s just too much to wade through. In fact, let’s just call this whole thing a ‘what if’ (which is really what it is). So many have seen enough of the information available thoroughly exposing both the Clintons and their altruistic-looking ‘Foundation’ as nothing short of an elaborately engineered storefront laundering money and hiding all sorts of criminal behavior. But that’s just my opinion - and I’m still entitled to that. For now.]

Finally I Can See What ‘Emailgate’ is REALLY All About!

My last article, Finally I Can See What ‘Emailgate’ is REALLY All About!, was the detailed, nascent version of what you’re reading here. I was thinking aloud about Hillary’s ‘emailgate’, I wrote everything down and ran it past the many readers of Canada Free Press and then the several journals, blogs and message boards that subsequently picked up the article. I didn’t find a single commentor who disagreed with any of my conclusions. Some of you may be thinking, “They probably didn’t know how to type” I thought about that, myself.

In its last paragraph I quoted Jon Sopel, North American editor for BBC News (and most probably the man who minted the term ‘emailgate’). In his March 2015 article, one of the earliest about that, Jon asked a most elementary question that has yet to be answered: “But if Hillary Clinton is - genuinely - so supremely relaxed about everyone seeing her e-mails, why did she conduct her business through this private e-mail account and...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 called the election of Egypt’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood leader a “milestone” for Egyptian democracy and offered covert police and security help, according to declassified State Department documents.

A nine-page document, once-labeled “Secret,” listed talking points for Clinton’s meeting with newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on July 14, 2012. The talking points said Morsi’s election was a key step toward popular democracy in the strategic North African state.

“We stand behind Egypt’s transition to democracy,” the heavily-redacted Clinton talking points state, adding that the only way to maintain a strong Egypt is “through a successful transition to democracy.”

The first key objective of the meeting was for Clinton to “offer our congratulations to Morsi and to the Egyptian people for this milestone in Egypt’s transition to democracy.”

Clinton then was meant to offer Morsi American technical expertise and assistance from both the U.S. government and private sector to support his economic and social programs.

Clinton’s talking points also included an offer of secret assistance to help Morsi “upgrade and reorient Egypt’s police force toward serving the needs of...

The Wikileaks dump is underway, and after a disappointing first batch of releases, the second has been damning for Hillary. Among the documents released are excerpts from her Wall Street speeches, which prove just why she was so reluctant to release them in the first place.

We learned, for instance, that she believes it’s important as a politician to have both a “public and private” stance on certain issues. It’s a statement everyone reads as defending being two-faced and deceitful to the American public – and she tried to claim she was taken out of context and speaking about Abe Lincoln in defense of herself! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

We already knew from previous hacks that the DNC had conspired against Bernie Sanders to ensure Hillary was the nominee. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down as a result of the controversy following that revelation, and was replaced by Donna Brazile….. who we just learned did the same thing (and then some):

"Assailants in a group of around a dozen threw Molotov cocktails at the car."

The war on cops isn't limited to America.

Eyewitnesses reported that on Saturday afternoon four police officers on patrol in the Grande Borne – a notorious housing estate in Paris – were "attacked from all sides" by an unidentified mob of about a dozen, according to the UK Express. The assailants hurled Molotov cocktails at the car.

"Two of the officers were very badly burned and rushed to intensive care units," a police source reported. Two others were hurt as well but "managed to call reinforcements who turned up to secure the area." They received hospital treatment.

French President Francois Hollande condemned the violence: "Everything will be done to find the perpetrators of this attack and...